Editorial
In reapportionment, incumbents aren't all

Advertiser Capitol Bureau reporters Kevin Dayton and Lynda Arakawa outlined the painful political realities of reapportionment in all their glory in their front-page article Monday.

The bottom line on their story is that the proposed new lines for state House and Senate districts are torturously designed to harming incumbents whenever possible.

You would hardly expect otherwise, since it is incumbent legislators who name eight of the nine commissioners. And when you think about it, there is inherent logic in trying to keep communities and their incumbent elected representation together.

The incumbent knows the district. The district obviously wants the incumbent, because a majority of voters chose him or her. So why not keep the marriage going?

The answer lies in the lengths to which the new lines will be stretched to accomplish this reasonable goal. When conflict between two incumbents seems impossible to avoid, Dayton and Arakawa pointed out, the reapportionment commission tended to focus in on lawmakers who have already indicated they might be moving on to other office.

This was the case for Republican Charles Djou in Kane'ohe and Democrat Ed Case in Manoa.

The Reapportionment Commission will soon take its draft plan out to public hearings. It is at this point that the commissioners will hear how their plans affect real people — the voters — as opposed to those who know hold office.

If the current plan does violence to the needs of existing communities or groups of voters, it is important that the lines be changed then; even if it comes at the expense of a sitting lawmaker or two.

The ultimate goal is for a new plan that meets the constitutional requirement of one-person, one-vote, maintains geographic and neighborhood integrity to the greatest degree possible and avoids at all costs an expensive and delaying round of lawsuits.